(no subject)

[theweaselking]

The death threat was delivered to Karazan’s father early in the morning by a masked man wearing a police uniform.
The scribbled note was brief. Karazan had to die because he was gay. In the new Baghdad, his sexuality warranted execution by the religious militias. The father was told that if he did not hand his son over, other family members would be killed.

What scares the city’s residents is how the fanatics’ list of enemies is growing. It includes girls who refuse to cover their hair, boys who wear theirs too long, booksellers, liberal professors and prostitutes. Three shops known to sell alcohol were bombed yesterday in the Karrada shopping district. In this atmosphere of intolerance and intimidation, the militias have made no secret of their hatred of homosexuals.

The man who threatened Karazan said that he was a member of the Taib (Wolf) Brigade, a commando group reportedly infiltrated by the armed wing of the hardline Shia party the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Its orders come from fundamentalist clerics.

Comments

[torrain.livejournal.com]

http://205.67.218.5/press/Review/2003/Autumn/art6-a03.htm ?

[anivair.livejournal.com]

Excellent article.

[mrbankies.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Of course, as I started reading it, I immediately thought of Baghdad.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Ran across it while Googling after being introduced to Warren Ellis and Ben Templesmith's Fell. Good series, though the last issue seems a little odd.

[springheel-jack.livejournal.com]

I was under the impression that the Ali Al-Sistani "fatwa declaring the gays had to be executed" story was debunked.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

If by "debunked" you mean "confirmed, by your very link, with the note that Sistani apparently assumes that the homosexual relationships he is referring to involve children but he didn't feel the need to say that when he said that homosexuals should all be killed in the very worst ways", then yes, "debunked".

From your link itself:
"there isn't any doubt that Sistani does advocate making gay relations a capital crime."

[springheel-jack.livejournal.com]

Did you read the whole thing?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Yes. What part of it did you think debunked the idea that Sistani says that being gay should be a capital crime?

"it is accurate that Sistani advises that the state make homosexual activity a capital crime;"

"A later fatwa insists that homosexual relations should be punished with the utmost severity, and urges the death penalty."

"there isn't any doubt that Sistani does advocate making gay relations a capital crime."

Sistani has, in fact, issued a fatwa stating that homosexuality should be punished by death, and that this death should be painful and terrible and slow. In what way does your link supporting this fact "debunk" the claim that Sistani has issued a fatwa stating that homosexuality should be punished by death, and that this death should be painful and terrible and slow?

[springheel-jack.livejournal.com]

Nothing gave me that idea, because that's not what is in question, and it's not what I said. Sistani thinks that a state organized on Sharia law would require that anyone who has anal sex be brought before a judge on a capital charge, and should a proper number of witnesses to the act be found, that person should be executed. This is of course sick and wrong (and is a good reason why Sharia governments run by fundamentalists are evil and terrible). But that's not what is alleged by the article. The Times article, following on one carried by 365Gay that made the rounds of the 'net a little while back, alleges that Sistani gave an order that death squads immediately fan out across the capital and kill gays wherever they find them. This I'm persuaded that Sistani did not do. He's known to oppose the whole idea of death squads. He has called for these 'militias' to cease acting. Further, he does not control any militia. He does not, in fact, have the power to issue such an order.

I suppose, arguably, one could construe Sistani as winking at the militias, doing a 'will no one rid me of this troublesome priest' act. It's possible; I don't know the man. But given his position as both a political moderate and as an important spiritual influence for a hundred million Iraqi Shia, he's acted to this point in a way that suggests he's aware of his key status and seeks not to use it to foment violence.

None of this, of course, is to deny that fundamentalist militias are operating in Iraq, and that they are killing people for a long laundry list of so-called "crimes" and that the situation is deteriorating by the day. But I'm not persuaded that such material as the Times article you linked or this (two articles which, between them, are about the whole of the coverage of this 'fatwa' in the Western press) provide any warrant to believe that Sistani is the ultimate source for these developments.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Ah, okay. I misunderstood - When you said

"I was under the impression that the Ali Al-Sistani 'fatwa declaring the gays had to be executed' story was debunked."

I thought you meant "Ali Al-Sistani never said that. It's a myth, like the Iranians making Jews wear Stars of David on their sleeves".

I see what you're saying, now.

And I sincerely doubt that his statements that gays should be executed are *helping* the situation, and I would not be surprised in the slightest if some of the violent religious militias DID take it as an instruction, but I do concede that he didn't give direct orders to that effect, or even try the troublesome priest trick.

[springheel-jack.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs. But I was a bit dismayed by the immediate credence given to this story the first time it popped up (I mean, the extreme death-squad version). It just didn't seem like something Sistani would do, and when the original article on 365Gay made the howling error of calling him the head of the Badr Corps (in fact that's Hadi al-Amiri, a completely different person) I started to wonder if this wasn't a bit of anti-Shia propaganda, or yet another of those stories designed to make us think that these Muslims are "all the same," that the violence in Iraq is only "sectarian" or based on "ancient Islamic hatreds." Just one of those things, nothing we can do about it, not the US's fault - rather than in large measure a means of resisting the American occupation.

Of course, as Juan Cole aptly put it, if you displace Ba'athism, what rushes in to fill the vacuum is political Islam. Another victory for the neoconservatives, I guess.

[springheel-jack.livejournal.com]

Uh, I notice that I didn't phrase that above post very well. I didn't mean to suggest that the anti-gay activities of militias are a way of resisting the US occupation. That would be crazy.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Yes.

The article you linked too seems *less* comprehesive than the article in theweaselking's initial post, since the latter notes that Sistani had to lift the fatwa against gays (just one? which one? not clear, dammit) while your article doesn't mention such an event.

The article you linked to says that he issued two fatwas regarding social reactions subsequent to homosexual affairs, and "A later fatwa insists that homosexual relations should be punished with the utmost severity, and urges the death penalty".

[springheel-jack.livejournal.com]

See above, but I'll note two things: First, Juan Cole's piece is older than the Times article; it responds to this piece (which was the origin of the theory that Sistani has ordered death squads to go kill gays). Second: the lack of clarity in the Times article (as well as the 365Gay article) is part of what I'm reacting to. You'll note that all of these things Sistani has done are in fact things he's 'reportedly' done. Citations are not given, timelines are not clear, sources unverifiable. It's not very good reporting.

[eididdy.livejournal.com]

Anyone who didn't see Iraq becoming an Iranian-style theocracy post-Saddam is an idiot or a member of the Bush Administration. Ah, but I repeat myself.